## Sanhedrin Daf 40b

###### Sanhedrin 40b:1
[Sanhedrin 40b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:1)

וְאֵימָא: חֲדָא חֲדָא כְּדִכְתִיבָא? דְּאִם כֵּן, לִיכְתְּבִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בַּחֲדָא! כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי כְּתִיבָא, מֵהֲדָדֵי יָלְפִי, וְכֵיוָן דְּיָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בַּחֲדָא דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that **each one** is **as it is written,** and conclude that the Torah requires, respectively, three, two, and two interrogations in the three cases of idol worship, an idolatrous city, and conspiring witnesses, discussed in those verses? **As, if** it is **so,** i.e., if there is a requirement of seven interrogations in all cases of capital law, **let the Merciful One write them in one** place, and it would be derived from there to other cases. The Gemara answers: **Since they are all written together,** i.e., they all employ analogous terminology, **one learns** the *halakhot* of **one from the other, and once one learns** the *halakhot* of **one from the other,** they **are considered as if they are written in one** place.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:2
[Sanhedrin 40b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:2)

וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָאן לַהֲדָדֵי? (סִימָן: פָּלֵט, סַיִיף, הַתְרָאָה.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** those three instances of idol worship, an idolatrous city, and conspiring witnesses **are not similar to each other,** so how can one derive the *halakhot* of one from the other? The Gemara records **a mnemonic** device for the following terms: **Escapes, sword, forewarning.**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:3
[Sanhedrin 40b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:3)

עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת לְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי לָא דָּמְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹנָן פָּלֵט. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי לָא דָּמְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן בְּסַיִיף. עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לְהָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי לָא דָּמְיָא, שֶׁכֵּן צְרִיכִים הַתְרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
What are the differences? The case of **an idolatrous city** is **not similar to those two,** i.e., idol worship and conspiring witnesses, **because** for the others **their money escapes** their fate. Although the court executes those transgressors, their money is not confiscated. By contrast, in the case of an idolatrous city, not only are the residents executed, all of their property is destroyed. **Idol worship** is **not similar to those two, as** the other two transgressions are judged **by the sword,** while the punishment for idol worship is death by stoning. The case of **conspiring witnesses** is **not similar to those two, as** those who transgress the two other transgressions **require forewarning** in order to be liable for the transgression, while conspiring witnesses are not forewarned before they testify.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:4
[Sanhedrin 40b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:4)

בְּ״הֵיטֵב״ ״הֵיטֵב״ יָלְפִינַן מֵהֲדָדֵי, וּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה מוּפְנָה. דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנָה, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ. לָאיֵי, אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֵי. מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִיכְתַּב ״וְדָרְשׁוּ וְחָקְרוּ״, וְשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ בְּ״הֵיטֵב״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This is not an association based on conceptual similarity alone; rather, **we learn one from the other based on** a verbal analogy employing the words **“diligently”** and **“diligently.”** “Diligently” is used in all three verses. The Gemara comments: **And** this **verbal analogy** must be **free,** i.e., these terms must be superfluous in their context. The Torah included them for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy. A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted. This is **because if** these terms are **not free,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted.** The Gemara concludes: This is **not so [*la’ei*],** i.e., the verbal analogy cannot be refuted, as **they are free.** The Gemara explains: **Since** the Torah **could have written: And they inquire and investigate, and the verse modified its statement by** writing **“diligently,” learn from it** that this term’s function is **to have it be free,** to enable a verbal analogy.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:5
[Sanhedrin 40b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:5)

וְאַכַּתִּי מוּפְנֶה מִצַּד אֶחָד הוּא! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי מוּפְנֶה הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב. אֶלָּא עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב? הָא כְּתִיבָא כּוּלְּהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **And yet it** is **free on** only **one side,** as the term is superfluous in two of the verses but not in all three of them. The Gemara explains: **Granted,** with regard to **these two,** idol worship and conspiring witnesses, **it is free, because it could have** been **written** only: And you inquire and you investigate, but instead the word “diligently” also appears in the verse. **But** in the verses concerning **an idolatrous city, what could it have written** differently? **They are all written.**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:6
[Sanhedrin 40b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:6)

הָתָם נָמֵי אַפְנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֵה, מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב ״דָּרוֹשׁ תִּדְרֹשׁ״ אוֹ ״חָקוֹר תַּחְקֹר״, וְשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִיבּוּרֵיהּ בְּ״הֵיטֵב״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** it is **also free,** as the term is superfluous in that verse as well. **Since** the Torah **could have written: You shall inquire, or: You shall investigate,** in an emphatic form by doubling the verb, **and the verse modified its statement by** writing: “And you shall inquire and investigate **diligently,” learn from it** that this term’s function is **to have it be free** in order to enable a verbal analogy. By way of this verbal analogy, the Gemara has derived the requirement for seven interrogations in cases of capital law where the punishment is either death by stoning or death by the sword.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:7
[Sanhedrin 40b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:7)

וְאָתוּ נֶחְנָקִין בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנִּסְקָלִין וּמִנֶּהֱרָגִין, וְאָתוּ נִשְׂרָפִין בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנִּסְקָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And** one can **learn** that this applies to **those** transgressors **who are strangled** as well, **by** means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from those** transgressors who are **stoned and from those** who are **killed** by the sword. Just as in these cases, where the transgression is severe as evidenced by their severe mode of execution, seven interrogations are required, the requirement should apply all the more so to those transgressors who are strangled, who committed a less severe transgression. **And** one can **learn** that this applies to **those** transgressors who are **burned** as well, **by** means of **an *a fortiori*** inference **from those** transgressors who are **stoned.**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:8
[Sanhedrin 40b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:8)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי סְקִילָה חֲמוּרָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר שְׂרֵיפָה חֲמוּרָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this last inference: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say** that **stoning** is more **severe** than burning (see 49b). Consequently, it is possible to derive by means of an *a fortiori* inference the *halakha* of a transgression whose punishment is burning from the *halakha* of a transgression whose punishment is stoning. **But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says** that **burning** is more **severe** than stoning, **what is there to say?**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:9
[Sanhedrin 40b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן״, ״וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן״ – הָא חַד סְרֵי. שֶׁבַע – לְשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, דַּל תְּלָת – לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, פָּשָׁא לְהוּ חֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Yehuda said:** There are an additional two phrases in the verses that are used to teach the *halakha* of the seven interrogations. The verse states with regard to the idolatrous city: “And you shall inquire, and investigate, and ask diligently **and behold it be truth,** the matter **certain”** (Deuteronomy 13:15). Additionally, the verse states with regard to idol worship: “You have inquired diligently **and behold it be truth,** the matter **certain”** (Deuteronomy 17:4). When one adds the two usages of “truth” and “certain” to the seven expressions stated earlier, **consequently,** there are **eleven** expressions; **seven** are used **to** teach the *halakha* of the **seven interrogations,** and of the four that remain, **remove three,** one for each verse, **for** the purpose of the **verbal analogy,** and **one remains.**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:10
[Sanhedrin 40b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:10)

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לְאֵתוֹיֵי נִשְׂרָפִין. לְרַבָּנַן, מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר – טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** this additional expression serves **to include** the *halakha* that the seven interrogations applies to **those** transgressors who are **burned. According to** the opinion of **the Rabbis** as well, who learned this from an *a fortiori* inference, the additional expression teaches this same *halakha*, as with regard to **a matter that can be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference, the **verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:11
[Sanhedrin 40b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:11)

מְגַדֵּף בַּהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֵימָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי שְׁמֹנֶה חֲקִירוֹת! וּשְׁמֹנֶה חֲקִירוֹת מִי אִיכָּא?! אַלְּמָה לָא? וְהָאִיכָּא לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּכַמָּה בְּשָׁעָה. וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָיוּ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁמֹנֶה חֲקִירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this** explanation: **Say** this additional expression serves **to add** that there are **eight interrogations.** The Gemara asks: **And are there eight interrogations?** What interrogation can be added? The Gemara suggests: And **why not? But there is** the possibility **to add** this question to the interrogation: **When in the hour,** i.e., at what time within the hour. **And this is also taught** in a *baraita*: **They would examine him with eight interrogations.**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:12
[Sanhedrin 40b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:12)

הָנִיחָא לְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם טוֹעֶה וְלֹא כְּלוּם, וּלְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא נָמֵי דְּאָמַר: אָדָם טוֹעֶה מַשֶּׁהוּ – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם טוֹעֶה חֲצִי שָׁעָה, וּלְרָבָא דְּאָמַר: טָעוּ אִינָשֵׁי טוּבָא – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This works out well according to** the explanation of **Abaye of** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir, who says,** in explaining Rabbi Meir’s opinion: **A person does not err at all,** i.e., when witnesses state an hour in which an event occurred, it is assumed that they are completely accurate. **And also according to the version** of his statement **that** Abaye **says: A person errs a bit;** it is **well.** Consequently, there is a reason to ask at what time during the hour the event occurred. **But according to** the explanation of **Abaye of** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, who says,** in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: **A person errs** up to **half an hour, and according to** the opinion of **Rava, who says: People err** even **more** than that; **what can be said?** There is no reason to ask at what time during the hour the event occurred, as any inconsistency will be ascribed to an innocent error.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:13
[Sanhedrin 40b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:13)

אֶלָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּכַמָּה בַּיּוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** there is the possibility **to add** the question: **In how many** years **within the jubilee,** i.e., in which of the fifty years, the event occurred.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:14
[Sanhedrin 40b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:14)

הַיְינוּ בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ! אֶלָּא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹבֵל. וְאִידַּךְ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ, לָא בָּעֵי בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹבֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **This is** exactly the same question as: **In which seven-year** period of the jubilee did the event occur, as one can calculate the year within the jubilee by knowing the seven-year period. The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** there is the possibility **to add** the question of: **In which jubilee** cycle did the event occur, in the current cycle or the previous cycle? **And the other** Sage, i.e., Rabbi Abbahu, who assumes that there cannot be an eighth interrogation, holds that **once** the witness **said in which seven-year** period of the jubilee the event occurred, there is **no need** to ask **in which jubilee** it occurred, as the court would have no reason to think that he is testifying about an event that occurred fifty years prior.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:15
[Sanhedrin 40b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:15)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לַחֲכָמִים: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר ״אֶמֶשׁ הֲרָגוֹ״, אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁבוּעַ?״, ״בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה?״, ״בְּאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ?״, ״בְּכַמָּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ?״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yosei says** they ask only on which day, at which hour, and in which place the event occurred, but not more. **It is taught** in a *baraita* the reasoning behind this dispute: **Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: According to your statement** that the court asks all seven interrogations, when there is a witness **who came** to court **and said:** The accused **killed** the victim **last night,** should the judge **say to him** in his examination: **In which seven-year** period of the jubilee, **in which year, in which month, on which** day **of the month** did the accused murder the victim? What would be the purpose of asking these questions? It suffices that they ask him about the day, the time, and the place.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:16
[Sanhedrin 40b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:16)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, מִי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר ״עַכְשָׁו הֲרָגוֹ״, אוֹמֵר לוֹ ״בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם?״, ״בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁעָה?״, ״בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם?״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him: According to your statement,** when there is a witness **who came** to court **and said:** The accused **killed** the victim just **now,** should the judge **say to him** in his examination: **On which day, at which hour, in what place** did the accused murder the victim? The witness already stated that the murder had just occurred.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:17
[Sanhedrin 40b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:17)

אֶלָּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא צָרִיךְ, רָמֵינַן עֲלֵיהּ כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא צָרִיךְ, רָמֵינַן עֲלֵיהּ כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis continue: **Rather,** even according to your opinion, **although it is not necessary** to ask these questions in this particular case, **we impose** the obligation to answer all the interrogations **on** the witnesses, **in accordance with** the explanation **of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** that the court beleaguers the witnesses in attempt to confuse them (see 32b). **Here too, although it is not necessary** to ask these questions in this particular case, **we impose** the obligation to answer all the interrogations **on** the witnesses, **in accordance with** the explanation **of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.**


###### Sanhedrin 40b:18
[Sanhedrin 40b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:18)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״אֶמֶשׁ הֲרָגוֹ״ – שְׁכִיחַ בְּרוֹב עֵדִיּוֹת, ״עַכְשָׁיו הֲרָגוֹ״ – לָא שְׁכִיחַ בְּרוֹב עֵדִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what would **Rabbi Yosei** respond to this claim? The Gemara explains: He holds that the witness testifying: The accused **killed** the victim **last night, is common in most testimonies.** Therefore, this testimony is taken into account when deciding the content of the interrogations. By contrast, the witness testifying: The accused **killed** the victim just **now, is not common in most testimonies,** i.e., it is relatively rare. Therefore, this testimony is not taken into account when deciding the content of the interrogations.


###### Sanhedrin 40b:19
[Sanhedrin 40b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:19)

מַכִּירִים אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַכִּירִים אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ? נׇכְרִי הָרַג? יִשְׂרָאֵל הָרַג? הִתְרִיתֶם בּוֹ? קִיבֵּל עָלָיו הַתְרָאָה? הִתִּיר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה? הֵמִית בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that after the interrogations the court asks several questions essential to the testimony, such as: **Do you recognize him? The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In a trial for murder, the court asks the witness: **Do you recognize** the accused? **Did he kill a gentile? Did he kill a Jew? Did you forewarn him? Did he accept the forewarning on himself,** i.e., acknowledge the warning? **Did he release himself to death,** i.e., acknowledge that he is aware that the court imposes capital punishment for murder? **Did he kill within** the time required **for speaking** a short phrase, as if not, he could claim he forgot the warning?


###### Sanhedrin 40b:20
[Sanhedrin 40b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:20)

הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֶת מִי עָבַד: לִפְעוֹר עָבַד? לְמַרְקוּלִיס עָבַד? וּבַמָּה עָבַד: בְּזִיבּוּחַ? בְּקִיטּוּר? בְּנִיסּוּךְ? בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **one who** is an accused **idol worshipper,** the court asks the witness: **Whom** among the idols **did he worship? Did he worship Peor? Did he worship Markulis? And in what** manner **did he worship?** Was it **by sacrificing** an offering, or **by burning** incense, **by pouring** wine **as a libation,** or **by prostrating** before the idol?


###### Sanhedrin 40b:21
[Sanhedrin 40b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/40b:21)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִנַּיִין לְהַתְרָאָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בַת אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ״. אַטּוּ בִּרְאִיָּה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיַּרְאוּהוּ טַעְמוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְכָרֵת –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says: From where in the Torah** is the obligation **of forewarning** derived? **As it is stated: “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness** and she see his nakedness, it is a disgraceful deed and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people” (Leviticus 20:17). One can ask: **Is that to say** that **the matter is dependent on sight?** The transgression is engaging in sexual intercourse, not seeing each other. **Rather,** the meaning of “and see” is: He is not liable **until he sees the reason of the matter,** that it should be clear to him that he is committing a transgression by having been forewarned. **If** this *halakha* **is not needed for the matter of excision [*karet*],** as this punishment is in the hands of Heaven, and God is aware whether or not he acted intentionally,